ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 01.11.2012 whereby promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Section Officer vide notification dated 30.07.2010 has been cancelled and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to consider and promote the petitioner on the post of Section Officer with effective due date, from which persons junior to the petitioner have been promoted vide notification dated 01.11.2012. 2. The facts, which are necessary for adjudicating the matter, as delineated in writ application, in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant under Secretariat Services on 06.10.1990. By passage of time, in the year 2008 the State of Jharkhand published the provisional gradation list vide memo dated 23.10.2008, wherein the name of the petitioner figured at serial no. 178 and considering the seniority and unblemished service career, the Departmental Promotion Committee found the petitioner eligible for promotion on the post of Section Officer and accordingly he was promoted on the post of Section Officer vide memo dated 30.07.2010. 3. In the meanwhile, upon directions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 594/2007, the seniority position of the Cadre of the Assistants as contained in Gradation List dated 23.10.2008 was revised by another Gradation list as contained in memo dated 11.10.2010, wherein the name of the petitioner finds figure at serial no. 590 instead of 178. Pursuant thereto, the respondents-authorities issued notification dated 01.11.2012 whereby promotion granted to the petitioner on the post of Section Officer vide memo dated 3o.07.2010 was cancelled, which is impugned in this case. 4. Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, A.C to learned S.C. II for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that Gradation List as well as Promotion list was published long back and before changing the Gradation List and cancelling the order of promotion, the petitioner has never been issued show cause notice and afforded with the opportunity to put forth his case before the respondents-authorities and straightway by one stroke of pen his promotion has been cancelled, which is violative of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that persons after serial no. 23 to serial no. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that persons after serial no. 23 to serial no. 340, who are juniors to the petitioner, have been promoted vide notification dated 01.11.2012 whereas the petitioner who had been found eligible in the year 2010, has been placed below to persons appearing between serial no. 23 to 340, which shows the hostile discrimination and differential treatment; hence the impugned order is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It has further been submitted that by impugned order dated 01.11.2012 many persons juniors to him have been promoted whereas the petitioner has been discriminated, hence to demonstrate the hostile discrimination being meted to him, the petitioner has proposed to implead few of them as party-respondents in representative capacity by filing I.A. No. 11 of 2013, which is pending before this Court. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a provisional seniority list of Assistants was published vide memo dated 23.10.2008, for which objections with regard to mistake/claim of seniority, if any, was sought for from the members of service. On the basis of provisional merit list dated 23.10.2008 though provisional promotion list was published vide memo dated 30.07.2010 but on the objections raised by some of the members of the services that they should be ranked senior to the petitioner-Shri Ramjee Singh, the matter was examined and thereafter a fresh provisional seniority list dated 11.10.2010 was circulated, wherein the seniority of the petitioner was placed at serial no. 590, which affected the promotion of the petitioner and the same was cancelled by issuance of impugned order. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that matter of promotion of petitioner was put up before the Departmental Promotion Committee in meeting dated 30.10.2012 and the Committee decided to withdraw its recommendation in respect of petitioner because his seniority was decided at junior place as compared to provisional seniority list and the Committee further decided to keep its recommendations in the sealed cover under the provisions as mentioned in 2(i)(c) and 2(ii) of resolution dated 20.11.2008 in respect of petitioner because of pendency of one CBI Case No. RCO4(A)-2010-AHD-R, wherein prosecution order has also been sanctioned against the petitioner vide order dated 08.08.2012. Besides, in the promotion list, it has clearly been stated that it is provisional order that can be at any time be revised/recalled, if any mistake comes into notice, as per Rule 58 of the Jharkhand Service Code. Furthermore, the petitioner has never been allotted the work of Section Officer and services of the petitioner was returned to the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha by the State Election Commission and he has been posted as Assistant in the Cabinet (Election) Department. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that matter of promotion of the petitioner has also been placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 29.10.2013, 13.10.2014, 21.08.2015 and 18.08.2016 but the Committee recommended for continuing the sealed cover process. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as a matter of fact, the criminal case on which much hype has been made by the respondents, in that case the petitioner was not even named in the First Information Report and only during investigation his name came into surface and thereupon supplementary charge-sheet vide charge-sheet dated 29.07.2013 was issued, however, the matter was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court in Cr.M.P No. 2261 of 2013, wherein vide order dated 06.09.2013, the Court has been pleased to grant interim protection by ordering “No Coercive Action” till further order and till now charge has not been framed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that as per the law laid down in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors as reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , the departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have commenced from the day of issuance of Memo of Charge in Departmental Proceeding and from the date of framing of Charge in the criminal proceeding. Admittedly, in the case since the charge has not been framed, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion on that count as admittedly on the date of D.P.C i.e. 30.10.2012 there had been no charge against the petitioner either in the criminal proceeding or in the departmental proceeding. 8. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that one provisional Gradation List was published vide memo dated 23.10.2008, on which objections were called for from the aggrieved persons and finally revised Gradation List was published vide memo dated 11.10.2010. 8. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that one provisional Gradation List was published vide memo dated 23.10.2008, on which objections were called for from the aggrieved persons and finally revised Gradation List was published vide memo dated 11.10.2010. But, the respondents-authorities before publication of revised Gradation List, promoted the Assistants to the post of Section Officer vide memo dated 30.07.2010, as per Gradation List 23.10.2008, which actually created disturbance amongst them as petitioner who was placed at serial no. 178 in Gradation List dated 23.10.2008 was placed at serial no. 590 in the revised Gradation List dated 11.10.2010; resultantly promotion given vide memo dated 30.07.2010 got disturbed and by passing impugned order dated 01.11.2012 and the promotion given to the petitioner was recalled. 9. Admittedly, before issuance of impugned order the petitioner was neither show caused nor opportunity was afforded to place his case before the Departmental Promotion Committee. In this regard, the statement given by the respondents that petitioner was never assigned the work of Section Officer got frustrated as per Office Order dated 21.12.2010, the Secretary, State Election Commission has assigned the petitioner to do the work of Section Officer in the Office. Hence, the impugned order is hit by cardinal principles of natural justice and on this ground is liable to be set aside. 10. From perusal of minutes of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 30.10.2012, Annexure A to Supplementary Affidavit, it appears that the Committee decided to withdraw its earlier recommendation for promotion of the petitioner as the petitioner being found junior and further decided to keep its recommendation in sealed cover in respect of petitioner because of pendency of CBI Case No. RC04(A)-2010-AHD-R. In this regard, it has been brought on record by the petitioner that though supplementary charge-sheet dated 29.07.2013 has been submitted in the Court, which was challenged by the petitioner by filing Cr.M.P. No. 2261 of 2013, in which the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 06.09.2013 granted interim protection, which is extended from date to date. Hence, the question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order is sustainable on the touchstone of laws laid down in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (Supra). For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph 16 and 17 is quoted herein below: 16. On the first question, viz. Hence, the question which falls for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order is sustainable on the touchstone of laws laid down in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (Supra). For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph 16 and 17 is quoted herein below: 16. On the first question, viz. as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions Nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2) * * * (3). * * * (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge-sheet filed before the criminal court and not before; 17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions. 11. Admittedly, in the case at hand supplementary charge-sheet was submitted on 29.07.2013; hence there was no justification by the respondents-authorities (Departmental Promotion Committee) to adopt the procedure of sealed cover in its meeting dated 30.10.2012 as there had been no charge against the petitioner either in criminal proceeding or in departmental proceeding. 12. In view of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 01.11.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents-authorities are directed to take a fresh decision taking into consideration the relevant rules of promotion, government circular/resolution; the judicial pronouncements in K.V. Jankiraman (Supra) and observations made by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.